Jump to content

zaelu

Members
  • Posts

    4430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by zaelu

  1. Hello. Thanks for this wonderful free helicopter (I have all others also and I really appreciate it). Regarding point 6 in your first post, I really suggest you to get in touch with a 3rd Party or become one.
  2. it is all explained here: you can add new radios as you want to configure them or just "install" a radio from another plane of another era to your plane and you could then use it to contact other units. Say you are in a P47 and want to talk with a Hornet driver... for some reason. and here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/medialibrary/30a/k3o2gik7dkxf2qpk2fram6igpp8egac0/DCS_Voice_Chat_Quick_Start.pdf
  3. All planes that have pilot body can turn it on and off. There was a little problem with Razbam's modules that ignored the option in the misc menu (iirc) to have it On from start of flight but now (supposedly) all is fixed and if you want them on they will be on and then you can toggle them on and off. I maped instead of RCtrl+P the Num0 key whych is easy to find in VR. I actually remaped a lot of keyboard keys for VR as by default are useless. All Numpad numbers for example. Are linked to moving around the camera to set up a better default View. Arrows for kneeboard down for showing the kneeboard, up for marking position and left/right for pages. Also Z key is useless having a HOTAS and pedals so is replacing the LAlt+' for rearm menu. X is briefing. Enter is replacing RCtrl+Enter for input viewer and Insert, Home, PG UP/Dwn, End and Del keys are now used to move between seats and toggle mirrors or doors etc.
  4. why use meshsmooth? I am 90 years old and I remember back in the day meshsmooth is basicaly self disqualifying your work. It's like putting a pound of colorful spices on a plate before presenting it to the jury.
  5. Imho it will greatly increase engagement with community. Format could be one adjusted to fit better DCS World and various subjects categories could be included. Core game features development (engine, modules, mission editor) 3rd party modules devs featuring as guests Campaign devs (they need more promo I am sure) ED could run threads with Questions proposed to be discussed and then voted. These Q&As should not be less than quarterly because community need to be engaged and the sampling rate should not be so low that it becomes irrelevant.
  6. Yup, ability to toggle between VR and pancake at wish would be cool. Just don't break the way it works now with Virtual Desktop wirelessly which is basically the best till now.
  7. Condensation vapors are ingame now since quite some time. They appear like in real life in certain condition which normally don't require necks to be broken in any way. Flying close to the water in some condition would increase moisture in the air and make vapor trails to appear easier if conditions are met however... maybe after the new weather system is fully developed such extra refined simulations will be added. They don't seem impossible for DCS engine.
  8. This is another super addition to the game! I am curious about the plans of expanding it. Is it possible to have a way to choose the type of planes for ground attack? maybe choppers? maybe a way to insert templated convoys on roads between two markers?
  9. Awesome script! I struggled with a simple respawn for years without success after a first round of respawn but your script simply works!
  10. took me a while to find a valid/working discord invite for UH-60l channel. this one on helisimmer site worked https://www.helisimmer.com/news/ul-60l-mod-dcs-out-early-access
  11. Bignewy, you first statement is rather unusual as per topic subject. It's like saying if you don't like my bad apples don't buy them. Well, first of all, most of us here bought them already. The second paragraph might be just a survivor bias, watch out, big bad wolf is on the buying spree.
  12. I dare to contradict you. If you go to any game shop and try to buy a game/dlc like YAK52 is, meaning 5 years old soon and "early access"... you will not get it at the same price like it was launched. Games and DLCs +4 years old usually are at a bargain or free. Now, I have little problems for ED to keep asking for 40$ (please don't take the often 50% discount price in discussion as is just part of the debatable poor marketing strategy ED is employing on their ecosystem arguably choking it for years). There are places where such pricing strategy (the one where pricing is kept for long time at same price as the launch one - not the small market milking by overpricing and pressure release by frequent sales) ) is more than acceptable and for sure in this airsim market would go very well. IF! The game and DLCs are constantly upgraded and kept up to date with public demands. Meaning at this moment for example the YAK52 has hardly any value for ED and it could be sold for 5-10$ but it is already years since they changed the pricing and sales strategy to give more pedigree and "durability" to their product line... which is... fine... whatever. But the modules should be constantly kept up to latest standards. At least visually. Why at least visually? Because this is primarily what drives sales to the mases that can really bring money for development. Milking few thousands that "would pay anything" for their favorite childhood wet dream plane then giving for the rest a break in sales period is just a slow coma. ED tried and still pushes the "Ka-50 2, 3" strategy and I can only hope they wake up from this losing on all fronts stratagem. You break compatibility and annoy community only to gain fewer and fewer sales to end up with a broken ecosystem. 5000 buy module x. 2500 buy module x-2 and so on. In the end you have amess everywhere. So, no. It shouldn't be understandable "it costs money to keep modules up to date" if they are priced at constant value. It is literally what keeps their sales! Unless it doesn't... like in this case which shows that the module(s) was a bad choice of investment. Is the current "team has no time to fulfill the module please continue to pay us full price" a solution? I am not sure. I have said previously that I would prefer more that "dead"/"bad investments" modules be offered for free as they can really increase the sales of the other modules. Save and use what you can in your advantage strategy. Yak52 could be given even as opensource where possible... but... I was an early advocate of "demo mode" like there is now, ED did actually surpassed my expectations and in doing so it made it clear is not going to work either. I mean... I do try modules and slowly buy them but mostly at sales or when frankly I receive them modules or money to buy them as gift. Literally true in my case. However... what I see in others is they try the modules for two weeks then move to other sim. If they buy them... IF! They buy them ONLY at sales. Practically shooting ED in the foot with their own strategy of milking small market with big pricing strategy. IMO... YAK can go with TF51 and Su25T for free. WW2 Asset pack should join them also (I own it but... it just breaks community). ED should concentrate on growing market share beyond the thick walls they've build around this small little shop. SoMe other$ showed very well it can be done with a bang. my same 2c
  13. One of the biggest points that holds DCS back in sales, usability and reusability is its way overdue to revamp mission Editor and planner interface. We all older players got used to scrolling through a insipid table and squinting for "our" plane of choice or even being more profi and use a F10 radio menu (rofl, can't believe it's a thing) to bring more stuff to the mission. But most of new players want to have nothing to do with that. The few that stick just either fly some prebuild missions for a while or go online and their creative potential might never be tapped. That table has to at least as an option be replaced with a spawn system where you just chose and airbase then from available plane set you chose a plane, reg number and loadout. Mission designer should be able to lock airbases, planes, loadouts but this cumbersome way of getting into the game should be let go. In complex missions a lot of time is wasted as a mission designer on placing individual planes on airbases, with loadouts, reg numbers and skins. Then detailed description have to be written in briefing or... as in most cases are not written because the system is so cumbersome that it is often almost impossible to do it without wasting a lot of time as mission designer or from the potential player that has to scroll to his mission through a ton of extra text that is not concerning him/his mission. And all this... only to have to take it from scratch on next mission just because the planeset is changed a little bit or more. Tasks should be possible also to split into airbases and flights etc. And finally. Sometimes squads play a set of missions that have a common core and basically progress from one to the next after a certain part of the first mission is done or when players decide is time to move over to next sequence. In current model a server operator has to stop the mission and load a next one... provided all the tedious work of re prepping it and modeling it was done. Everybody is despawned and has to restart fresh regardless if it was or not necessary. This adds clunkiness in mission design and mission execution. To alleviate some of these drawbacks the new layer system should be expanded in such manner that the mission designer should be able to assign part of the mission objects/flights/assets to a section/sequence of his own choosing to different layers. Meaning not only labels and text but mission objects altogether. And these layers should be toggleable as in view or not during mission creation this way the design process would be streamlined (currently you have to show/hide all units that are set hidden and this is not exactly what is needed. You need to see or not see just a part of the mission and also that operation should not have to do anything to the actual mission execution. Think of it as layers in photoshop! More of it, these layers could be set as activable during the mission execution or prohibited to be activated unless ordered by Game Master or certain conditions. Much like triggers but more comprehensive. For example, I have a very complex mission that I play with my friends when we have the time. Inside the mission we have several airbases where we usually hang out for basic general type training. If at some point we want to start an intercept mission or an attack on ground mission... such missions are available via F10 menu. Some of the missions are connected, some are not. Some require a certain era of aircraft to proceed some are more general. Not only that is a tedious work to maintain those missions but there is no way to tune them to the needs of the moment. And no... making a new mission for each small idea would be crazy and everyone would leave for making french fries or playing other game. Another BIG problem is impossibility to despawn or switch assets for people that don't have WW2 asset pack or maybe a mod. Game master should be able to command such simple tasks. If they would be placed on toggle-able layers it would be easy. I know it might sound as too much and "hey, we are selling complex planes mostly" but the reality is you (ED) are trying!! to sell complex planes and you are struggling more than necessary because "it is not about just the planes" it is about what you do with them and how interesting and easy to learn to ply with them is. And I am sure that a lot of people tried DCS, went to multiplayer and when they saw the table they just uninstall the game and moved over. That is a lost sale with several other ramifications which I won't get into as already this post is too long One another example is the work of the community that made huge leaps in this regard but still is held back by a lot of the core features of ME. The latest is Mission Enhancer package. an absolute piece of art which is perplexing since the game is EDs game. How come such features are not available already in a GUI interface?? Why wasn't this a priority? Having people able to interact with a mission visually is a feature like only the creators of 3dMax couldn't see but users of 3DStudio Max could. IE sometimes the tool maker doesn't know what his tool is actually good for until he modifies it in an apparent useless way for somebody else.
  14. For me it works OKeish but I don't use all features, mostly the dynamic mission info and that seems to have 2 bugs or missing features. I need to reset it for other missions sometimes at least and the fact that a longer mission briefing is not put/truncated on more than first page. Thanks for the app anyway AlaskanGrizzly !
  15. I have serious problems with it for now but... I will make it work! Imho it should be true to how it was... No point in having NWS/NWS HI where it wasn't available. Keeps the planes personalities intact.
  16. Was someone able to find the "fire minigun" new command added (supposedly) by the last patch? I can't find it anywhere. Is it an unconfirmed usual mishap in the update?
  17. Merry Christmas and Happy New year! Thanks for the updates!! Fingers crossed for some other Russian planes!
  18. " Gun binding issue solved (now you have a new binding "Minigun Fire")" Where is the minigun fire control from patch notes? Computer with the lua file for it crashed?
  19. This is getting so old. Just don't say anything. Merry Christmas!
  20. I have searched but I couldn't find a report on this. In VR the radar range red numbers are a chore to see. I am using max graphical settings ad Oculus Quest 2 on 1.7 SS equivalent. That means 2688x2784 per eye. Is it something that is better at lower resolutions? Similarly somehow the text on warning panels are also hard to read but for those I have found that the textures are really low rez. Not sure in radar range case if it's the same... the numbers for the range seem to be very very dim primarily.
  21. I tried the demo Viggen - quite a pleasant surprise overall but - but this was one of the problems I had with it. I was surprised to see after so many years the key bindings being left into such need of improvement. I mean... the module is being sold still at full price basically most of the time isn't it? I thought that was the idea. There is no ccw and cw turn for weapon release sequencer There are some missile select buttons that are doing nothing or doing some gun noise - whaaat? Toggles for targeting and release (right wall) and toggles for radar log/lin sea/land and norm/short are not working as one would expect or in the case of norm/short only one of 3 commands are available for joystick controller. And many others more. Viggen 2 maybe?
  22. Same problem appears to my end. It solves itself after deleting the input files in "C:\Users\YOUR USER\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\Input\AV8BNA\keyboard" or if I just delete the commands and redo them in DCS menu. Second option Does not work all the time. Yellow double commands appear when there are multiple conflicting config files I suppose and sometimes they get re-"aligned" by the above mentioned ways. I have noticed that inside DCS game folder in \DCS World\Config\Input there are 2 files that create commands for kneeboard: 1: K:\DCS World\Config\Input\Aircrafts\base_keyboard_binding.lua and 2. K:\DCS World\Config\Input\Aircrafts\Common\keyboard\default.lua These commands are read by each module it seems to create their own profile inside the game but each module should presumably read only one of the two files or create one single coherent output after reading both. This process somehow and sometimes fails! The files in C:\Users\YOUR USER\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\Input\AV8BNA\keyboard do not store conflicting information about the keyboard commands when the bug appears. Meaning when the problem is present that file is not having any duplicates or conflicting duplicates in it upon inspection, however the bug disappears when the file is deleted presumably because the game is forced to read again the default files and make a new profile. Also The files present in: DCS World\Mods\aircraft\AV8BNA\Input\AV8BNA\keyboard do not have the commands for kneeboard that get duplicated and yellowed. Which prompted me to my assumption that the problem must be in reading the 2 default files I mention at the beginning 1: K:\DCS World\Config\Input\Aircrafts\base_keyboard_binding.lua and 2. K:\DCS World\Config\Input\Aircrafts\Common\keyboard\default.lua and this is why this bug has this erratic behavior.
  23. zaelu

    Pilot body

    It seems it's a polarizing topic and when devs don't find it useful they simply assume everyone shouldn't bother. On the other hand when they accept it as a requested feature (remember back in the days people thought a cockpit is a hinder in seeing outside?) they don't really understand what is requested so they default to some wrong assumptions. That's why you see on Heatblur's F14s and Razbam's Mirage and Harrier so much time and resources wasted on "sculpting" the pilot to a fidelity that is never requested then more work on transferring the useless polygons into normal maps only to end up 2-3 years later with a deformed over expensive to develop pilot body. Or missing altogether in the case of F14 and all other EDs modules that don't have one. Should it look as best as possible? Yes but that is not mandatory. What is asked is a pilot body, possible animated. I am sure everyone here that want a pilot body would rather have one on the first Ka50 and P51 fidelity but animated. More animated cockpit interactions (like I said gear and some switches) and maybe... just maybe better control on the ground and god forbid on parachute would be far far far more useful than absurd million polycount models. my same 2c
×
×
  • Create New...